I am working on new project that migration Access database and its ASP.NET
application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how to
do it from beginning to the end.
Thank you very much and Happy New Year.
Kevin,
Microsoft suggests that you use the Upsizing wizard in Access 2k to
accomplish this. I have posted a url for you below that has a link to a very
detailed white paper that explains how to use this wizard.
I hope this helps.
http://support.microsoft.com/default...roduct=acc2000
|||That request is beyond the scope of a simple newsgroup question.
Migrating the data shouldn't be too difficult -- for best results,
create the schema and database objects in SQLS and migrate the data
using DTS or the Access upsizing wizard. As far as ASP.NET goes, take
a look at the ASP.NET security best-practices whitepaper,
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/r...leaseID=44047. That
will get you started about thinking of your overall application and
security architecture. Also visit the ASP.NETand SQLS developer
centers at http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/ and
http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/, respectively.
--Mary
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:50:25 -0800, "Kevin"
<Kevin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I am working on new project that migration Access database and its ASP.NET
>application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how to
> do it from beginning to the end.
>Thank you very much and Happy New Year.
|||Thanks Brian.
Do you know which one is better between Upsizing or DTS approach?
"Brian Brown" wrote:
> Kevin,
> Microsoft suggests that you use the Upsizing wizard in Access 2k to
> accomplish this. I have posted a url for you below that has a link to a very
> detailed white paper that explains how to use this wizard.
> I hope this helps.
> --
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...roduct=acc2000
|||Thanks Mary.
"Mary Chipman" wrote:
> That request is beyond the scope of a simple newsgroup question.
> Migrating the data shouldn't be too difficult -- for best results,
> create the schema and database objects in SQLS and migrate the data
> using DTS or the Access upsizing wizard. As far as ASP.NET goes, take
> a look at the ASP.NET security best-practices whitepaper,
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/r...leaseID=44047. That
> will get you started about thinking of your overall application and
> security architecture. Also visit the ASP.NETand SQLS developer
> centers at http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/ and
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/, respectively.
> --Mary
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:50:25 -0800, "Kevin"
> <Kevin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
Showing posts with label guide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guide. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Migrate Access2000 to SQL2000 database
I am working on new project that migration Access database and its ASP.NET
application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how to
do it from beginning to the end.
Thank you very much and Happy New Year.Kevin,
Microsoft suggests that you use the Upsizing wizard in Access 2k to
accomplish this. I have posted a url for you below that has a link to a very
detailed white paper that explains how to use this wizard.
I hope this helps.
--
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=241743&product=acc2000|||That request is beyond the scope of a simple newsgroup question.
Migrating the data shouldn't be too difficult -- for best results,
create the schema and database objects in SQLS and migrate the data
using DTS or the Access upsizing wizard. As far as ASP.NET goes, take
a look at the ASP.NET security best-practices whitepaper,
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=44047. That
will get you started about thinking of your overall application and
security architecture. Also visit the ASP.NETand SQLS developer
centers at http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/ and
http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/, respectively.
--Mary
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:50:25 -0800, "Kevin"
<Kevin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I am working on new project that migration Access database and its ASP.NET
>application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how to
> do it from beginning to the end.
>Thank you very much and Happy New Year.|||Thanks Brian.
Do you know which one is better between Upsizing or DTS approach?
"Brian Brown" wrote:
> Kevin,
> Microsoft suggests that you use the Upsizing wizard in Access 2k to
> accomplish this. I have posted a url for you below that has a link to a very
> detailed white paper that explains how to use this wizard.
> I hope this helps.
> --
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=241743&product=acc2000|||Thanks Mary.
"Mary Chipman" wrote:
> That request is beyond the scope of a simple newsgroup question.
> Migrating the data shouldn't be too difficult -- for best results,
> create the schema and database objects in SQLS and migrate the data
> using DTS or the Access upsizing wizard. As far as ASP.NET goes, take
> a look at the ASP.NET security best-practices whitepaper,
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=44047. That
> will get you started about thinking of your overall application and
> security architecture. Also visit the ASP.NETand SQLS developer
> centers at http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/ and
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/, respectively.
> --Mary
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:50:25 -0800, "Kevin"
> <Kevin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >I am working on new project that migration Access database and its ASP.NET
> >application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how to
> > do it from beginning to the end.
> >Thank you very much and Happy New Year.
>
application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how to
do it from beginning to the end.
Thank you very much and Happy New Year.Kevin,
Microsoft suggests that you use the Upsizing wizard in Access 2k to
accomplish this. I have posted a url for you below that has a link to a very
detailed white paper that explains how to use this wizard.
I hope this helps.
--
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=241743&product=acc2000|||That request is beyond the scope of a simple newsgroup question.
Migrating the data shouldn't be too difficult -- for best results,
create the schema and database objects in SQLS and migrate the data
using DTS or the Access upsizing wizard. As far as ASP.NET goes, take
a look at the ASP.NET security best-practices whitepaper,
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=44047. That
will get you started about thinking of your overall application and
security architecture. Also visit the ASP.NETand SQLS developer
centers at http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/ and
http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/, respectively.
--Mary
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:50:25 -0800, "Kevin"
<Kevin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I am working on new project that migration Access database and its ASP.NET
>application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how to
> do it from beginning to the end.
>Thank you very much and Happy New Year.|||Thanks Brian.
Do you know which one is better between Upsizing or DTS approach?
"Brian Brown" wrote:
> Kevin,
> Microsoft suggests that you use the Upsizing wizard in Access 2k to
> accomplish this. I have posted a url for you below that has a link to a very
> detailed white paper that explains how to use this wizard.
> I hope this helps.
> --
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=241743&product=acc2000|||Thanks Mary.
"Mary Chipman" wrote:
> That request is beyond the scope of a simple newsgroup question.
> Migrating the data shouldn't be too difficult -- for best results,
> create the schema and database objects in SQLS and migrate the data
> using DTS or the Access upsizing wizard. As far as ASP.NET goes, take
> a look at the ASP.NET security best-practices whitepaper,
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=44047. That
> will get you started about thinking of your overall application and
> security architecture. Also visit the ASP.NETand SQLS developer
> centers at http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/ and
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/, respectively.
> --Mary
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:50:25 -0800, "Kevin"
> <Kevin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >I am working on new project that migration Access database and its ASP.NET
> >application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how to
> > do it from beginning to the end.
> >Thank you very much and Happy New Year.
>
Migrate Access2000 to SQL2000 database
I am working on new project that migration Access database and its ASP.NET
application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how t
o
do it from beginning to the end.
Thank you very much and Happy New Year.Kevin,
Microsoft suggests that you use the Upsizing wizard in Access 2k to
accomplish this. I have posted a url for you below that has a link to a ver
y
detailed white paper that explains how to use this wizard.
I hope this helps.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...product=acc2000|||That request is beyond the scope of a simple newsgroup question.
Migrating the data shouldn't be too difficult -- for best results,
create the schema and database objects in SQLS and migrate the data
using DTS or the Access upsizing wizard. As far as ASP.NET goes, take
a look at the ASP.NET security best-practices whitepaper,
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...eleaseID=44047. That
will get you started about thinking of your overall application and
security architecture. Also visit the ASP.NETand SQLS developer
centers at http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/ and
http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/, respectively.
--Mary
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:50:25 -0800, "Kevin"
<Kevin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I am working on new project that migration Access database and its ASP.NET
>application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how
to
> do it from beginning to the end.
>Thank you very much and Happy New Year.|||Thanks Brian.
Do you know which one is better between Upsizing or DTS approach?
"Brian Brown" wrote:
> Kevin,
> Microsoft suggests that you use the Upsizing wizard in Access 2k to
> accomplish this. I have posted a url for you below that has a link to a v
ery
> detailed white paper that explains how to use this wizard.
> I hope this helps.
> --
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...product=acc2000|||Thanks Mary.
"Mary Chipman" wrote:
> That request is beyond the scope of a simple newsgroup question.
> Migrating the data shouldn't be too difficult -- for best results,
> create the schema and database objects in SQLS and migrate the data
> using DTS or the Access upsizing wizard. As far as ASP.NET goes, take
> a look at the ASP.NET security best-practices whitepaper,
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...eleaseID=44047. That
> will get you started about thinking of your overall application and
> security architecture. Also visit the ASP.NETand SQLS developer
> centers at http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/ and
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/, respectively.
> --Mary
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:50:25 -0800, "Kevin"
> <Kevin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how t
o
do it from beginning to the end.
Thank you very much and Happy New Year.Kevin,
Microsoft suggests that you use the Upsizing wizard in Access 2k to
accomplish this. I have posted a url for you below that has a link to a ver
y
detailed white paper that explains how to use this wizard.
I hope this helps.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...product=acc2000|||That request is beyond the scope of a simple newsgroup question.
Migrating the data shouldn't be too difficult -- for best results,
create the schema and database objects in SQLS and migrate the data
using DTS or the Access upsizing wizard. As far as ASP.NET goes, take
a look at the ASP.NET security best-practices whitepaper,
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...eleaseID=44047. That
will get you started about thinking of your overall application and
security architecture. Also visit the ASP.NETand SQLS developer
centers at http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/ and
http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/, respectively.
--Mary
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:50:25 -0800, "Kevin"
<Kevin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I am working on new project that migration Access database and its ASP.NET
>application to SQL2000 database. Please give me the guide and strategy how
to
> do it from beginning to the end.
>Thank you very much and Happy New Year.|||Thanks Brian.
Do you know which one is better between Upsizing or DTS approach?
"Brian Brown" wrote:
> Kevin,
> Microsoft suggests that you use the Upsizing wizard in Access 2k to
> accomplish this. I have posted a url for you below that has a link to a v
ery
> detailed white paper that explains how to use this wizard.
> I hope this helps.
> --
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...product=acc2000|||Thanks Mary.
"Mary Chipman" wrote:
> That request is beyond the scope of a simple newsgroup question.
> Migrating the data shouldn't be too difficult -- for best results,
> create the schema and database objects in SQLS and migrate the data
> using DTS or the Access upsizing wizard. As far as ASP.NET goes, take
> a look at the ASP.NET security best-practices whitepaper,
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...eleaseID=44047. That
> will get you started about thinking of your overall application and
> security architecture. Also visit the ASP.NETand SQLS developer
> centers at http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/ and
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/sql/, respectively.
> --Mary
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:50:25 -0800, "Kevin"
> <Kevin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Microsoft Windows 2000 alocation unit
Hi,
In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...in/sqlops6.mspx
)
in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
following:
<<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
result in split I/Os.>>
How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
Many thanks,
OskarIn addition to my previous post: does the bigger allocation unit size really
make sense for the disk, on which you place the tempdb database?
"Oskar" wrote:
> Hi,
> In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
> ([url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx[/ur
l])
> in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
> following:
> <<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduce
s
> the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then mig
ht
> result in split I/Os.>>
> How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
> noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
> 64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...in/sqlops6.mspx
)
in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
following:
<<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
result in split I/Os.>>
How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
Many thanks,
OskarIn addition to my previous post: does the bigger allocation unit size really
make sense for the disk, on which you place the tempdb database?
"Oskar" wrote:
> Hi,
> In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
> ([url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx[/ur
l])
> in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
> following:
> <<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduce
s
> the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then mig
ht
> result in split I/Os.>>
> How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
> noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
> 64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
Microsoft Windows 2000 alocation unit
Hi,
In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx)
in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
following:
<<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
result in split I/Os.>>
How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
--
Many thanks,
OskarIn addition to my previous post: does the bigger allocation unit size really
make sense for the disk, on which you place the tempdb database?
"Oskar" wrote:
> Hi,
> In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
> (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx)
> in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
> following:
> <<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
> the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
> result in split I/Os.>>
> How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
> noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
> 64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx)
in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
following:
<<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
result in split I/Os.>>
How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
--
Many thanks,
OskarIn addition to my previous post: does the bigger allocation unit size really
make sense for the disk, on which you place the tempdb database?
"Oskar" wrote:
> Hi,
> In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
> (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx)
> in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
> following:
> <<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
> the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
> result in split I/Os.>>
> How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
> noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
> 64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
Microsoft Windows 2000 alocation unit
Hi,
In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...n/sqlops6.mspx)
in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
following:
<<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
result in split I/Os.>>
How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
Many thanks,
Oskar
In addition to my previous post: does the bigger allocation unit size really
make sense for the disk, on which you place the tempdb database?
"Oskar" wrote:
> Hi,
> In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
> (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...n/sqlops6.mspx)
> in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
> following:
> <<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
> the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
> result in split I/Os.>>
> How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
> noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
> 64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...n/sqlops6.mspx)
in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
following:
<<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
result in split I/Os.>>
How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
Many thanks,
Oskar
In addition to my previous post: does the bigger allocation unit size really
make sense for the disk, on which you place the tempdb database?
"Oskar" wrote:
> Hi,
> In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
> (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...n/sqlops6.mspx)
> in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
> following:
> <<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
> the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
> result in split I/Os.>>
> How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
> noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
> 64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>
Monday, February 20, 2012
Microsoft SQL Server Mobile Edition data source
i just installed a copy of microsoft sql server 2005 in my pc and decided to follow the newbie's guide:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnppcgen/html/med302_msdn_sql_mobile.asp?frame=true
anyway, on the 5th exercise wherein i'm supposed to add a new data connection through the server explorer.. when i chose the option of adding a new data source and was prompted to select a data source i couldnt find the Microsoft SQL Server Mobile Edition data source..
is there anything else that i need to download in order to have that data source?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnppcgen/html/med302_msdn_sql_mobile.asp?frame=true
anyway, on the 5th exercise wherein i'm supposed to add a new data connection through the server explorer.. when i chose the option of adding a new data source and was prompted to select a data source i couldnt find the Microsoft SQL Server Mobile Edition data source..
is there anything else that i need to download in order to have that data source?
1) Did your installation include "SQL Server 2005 Mobile Edition". Can you see SQL Mobile traces in "Add/Remove Programs" directory. Some thing like "SQL Server Mobile Developer Tools".
2) If yes, then can you please follow the thread@. http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=260599&SiteID=1, and see if it helps you out.
Thanks,
Laxmi Narsimha Rao ORUGANTI, MSFT, SQL Mobile, Microsoft Corporation
|||uh yeah. but mine says "Microsoft SQL Server Mobile 2005 Mobile [ENU] Server Tools" i got the sql server 2005 mobile edition by accessing the sqlce30setupen.msi file. also i already tried to add the following lines to the machine.config file but i still couldnt find it when i open vs studio 2005. anyway, if worst comes to worst and i cant figure this one out would you happen to know how i would configure the database connection for a pocket pc through the use of vs.net 2003?<add name="SQL Server CE Data Provider" invariant="Microsoft.SqlServerCe.Client" description=".NET Framework Data Provider for Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Mobile Edition" type="Microsoft.SqlServerCe.Client.SqlCeClientFactory, Microsoft.SqlServerCe.Client, Version=9.0.242.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=89845dcd8080cc91" />|||
Hmm...it looks like SQL Mobile Developer tools were not installed. Server Tools are not needed for you, they are meant for synchronization of SQL Mobile database with SQL Server. If you dont have Developer Tools, try installing the SQL Mobile Developer tools from the following location of your VS 2005 Disk: wcu\SQLCE\sqlmobile30devtoolsxxx.msi
The xxx in the MSI name stand for the locale, for english it would be 'enu'.
Let me know installing that worked for you.
Thanks
Laxmi Narsimha Rao ORUGANTI, MSFT, SQL Mobile, Microsoft Corporation
|||Dear Laxmi....I also have the same problem and I tried to install the SQL Mobile Developer tools from VS 2005, but the location is not avalaible in the CD. I used VS PRo 2005.
Please help me because I have a project to write program for My Mobile Application that's need to connect to database.
Microsoft SQL Server Mobile Edition data source
i just installed a copy of microsoft sql server 2005 in my pc and decided to follow the newbie's guide:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnppcgen/html/med302_msdn_sql_mobile.asp?frame=true
anyway, on the 5th exercise wherein i'm supposed to add a new data
connection through the server explorer.. when i chose the option of
adding a new data source and was prompted to select a data source i
couldnt find the Microsoft SQL Server Mobile Edition data source..
is there anything else that i need to download in order to have that data source?
1) Did your installation include "SQL Server 2005 Mobile Edition". Can you see SQL Mobile traces in "Add/Remove Programs" directory. Some thing like "SQL Server Mobile Developer Tools".
2) If yes, then can you please follow the thread@. http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=260599&SiteID=1, and see if it helps you out.
Thanks,
Laxmi Narsimha Rao ORUGANTI, MSFT, SQL Mobile, Microsoft Corporation
|||uh yeah. but mine says "Microsoft SQL Server Mobile 2005 Mobile [ENU]Server Tools" i got the sql server 2005 mobile edition by accessing the
sqlce30setupen.msi file. also i already tried to add the
following lines to the machine.config file but i still couldnt find it
when i open vs studio 2005. anyway, if worst comes to worst and i
cant figure this one out would you happen to know how i would configure
the database connection for a pocket pc through the use of vs.net 2003?
<add
name="SQL Server CE Data Provider"
invariant="Microsoft.SqlServerCe.Client" description=".NET Framework
Data Provider for Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Mobile Edition"
type="Microsoft.SqlServerCe.Client.SqlCeClientFactory,
Microsoft.SqlServerCe.Client, Version=9.0.242.0, Culture=neutral,
PublicKeyToken=89845dcd8080cc91" />|||
Hmm...it looks like SQL Mobile Developer tools were not installed. Server Tools are not needed for you, they are meant for synchronization of SQL Mobile database with SQL Server. If you dont have Developer Tools, try installing the SQL Mobile Developer tools from the following location of your VS 2005 Disk: wcu\SQLCE\sqlmobile30devtoolsxxx.msi
The xxx in the MSI name stand for the locale, for english it would be 'enu'.
Let me know installing that worked for you.
Thanks
Laxmi Narsimha Rao ORUGANTI, MSFT, SQL Mobile, Microsoft Corporation
|||Dear Laxmi....I also have the same problem and I tried to install the SQL Mobile Developer tools from VS 2005, but the location is not avalaible in the CD. I used VS PRo 2005.
Please help me because I have a project to write program for My Mobile Application that's need to connect to database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)